Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The question in this case is whether the trustees under Exs. II and III are purchasers for valuable consideration. In Narayan Coomari Debi v. Shajani Kanta Chatterjee (1894) I.L.R. 22 C. 14, it was held that a contract to pay remuneration to a person appointed as an executor was a contract for valuable consideration proceeding from the person appointed as an executor. The learned Judges say at page 18 "The plaintiff who was not legally bound to accept the office of executor,...applied for probate as executor, and having obtained probate, he performed duties of the executor." "There was thus, we think, a clear consideration for the alleged contract. (See Indian Contract Act, Section 2(d), Addison on Contracts, page 2, 9th Edition, and Pollock on Contracts, 5th Edition, page 176)." A responsibility therefore taken by a person to whom properties are transferred in consideration of his taking such onerous work seems to me to fall within the expression "valuable consideration" found in Section 38 and Section 38(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, Hence the three creditors who undertook to be trustees of the insolvents properties for the benefit of all the c